I believe the verdict is a subjective matter and therefore there can't be right or wrong in this. Although I tried to be as objective as possible. But based on the trial itself, I support Position 2 in disproving Position 1's theory, “The world and everything in it is unplanned accident, existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant; nothing matters". I arrived to this conclusion, not because I was the witness (Shaper) of Position 2, but because Position 2 had more convincing evidences and questions answered while Position 1 didn't really do as well. First off, the Dragon, which is perhaps the most important witness for Position 1 due to his extreme disbelief towards god and the meaning of life, wasn't able to properly answer the questions asked by Position 2 lawyers. When one of Position 2 lawyers asked a question to Dragon, "Why do you seek and sit on gold if there is no meaning? Why were you vexed when someone took gold from you in the book if you do not care and there is no meaning?", the Dragon wasn't able to clearly answer this vital question but merely twist his answers around and keep on repeating the sentiment "Just because I seek gold doesn't mean I have to care". Which is a totally contradictory. The trial itself, in my opinion favours Position 2 because there has to be some meaning in life. Even if we base the trial solely based on the books and the letter, we prevail. The Dragon, the critical witness of Position 1 wasn't able to answer the questions enquired by our lawyers. On the other hand, all of our witnesses answered the questions asked by the Position 1 lawyers. Plus, the Position 2 lawyers asked ciritical questions towards the Position 1 witnesses that really helped clarify that Position 2 is the winner, therefore there IS meaning to life.
I believe the verdict is a subjective matter and therefore there can't be right or wrong in this. Although I tried to be as objective as possible. But based on the trial itself, I support Position 2 in disproving Position 1's theory, “The world and everything in it is unplanned accident, existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant; nothing matters". I arrived to this conclusion, not because I was the witness (Shaper) of Position 2, but because Position 2 had more convincing evidences and questions answered while Position 1 didn't really do as well. First off, the Dragon, which is perhaps the most important witness for Position 1 due to his extreme disbelief towards god and the meaning of life, wasn't able to properly answer the questions asked by Position 2 lawyers. When one of Position 2 lawyers asked a question to Dragon, "Why do you seek and sit on gold if there is no meaning? Why were you vexed when someone took gold from you in the book if you do not care and there is no meaning?", the Dragon wasn't able to clearly answer this vital question but merely twist his answers around and keep on repeating the sentiment "Just because I seek gold doesn't mean I have to care". Which is a totally contradictory. The trial itself, in my opinion favours Position 2 because there has to be some meaning in life. Even if we base the trial solely based on the books and the letter, we prevail. The Dragon, the critical witness of Position 1 wasn't able to answer the questions enquired by our lawyers. On the other hand, all of our witnesses answered the questions asked by the Position 1 lawyers. Plus, the Position 2 lawyers asked ciritical questions towards the Position 1 witnesses that really helped clarify that Position 2 is the winner, therefore there IS meaning to life.